Jane Bown – Portrait of B. Russell, 1949 - WEEKLY DISCUSSION # 13

[aplumpton]

<p>The photographer for this discussion is less evolutionary or revolutionary than some who have been the subject of previous posts but I hope that the basic technical manner the photographer uses in her work may be of interest for discussion. Jane Bown is a modest and unassuming professional photographer, perhaps less known for that outside her own country, yet I think she is someone who has a great ability to seize the essence of her portrait subjects in a minimum of time spent with them. Her first portrait, in 1949, which followed upon her photography education at Guildford College, England, took her from being a child photographer to a photographer for the Observer weekly newspaper, a post she has held during more than 60 years and into the present century. Her portrait subjects have alternated between the famous and everyman or everywoman, while her approach has remained the same for both types of subjects.</p>

<p>Thanks to the opportunity provided by Fred, I am submitting here her first photograph for the Observer, that of Bertrand Russell, for discussion. Here's a <a href="http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/736x/34/4e/c9/344ec96105babf725b21232e3aa9f974.jpg" target="_blank">LINK</a> to the image. Already then, I think, her approach was established.</p>

<p>Before they married, Russell’s first wife apparently considered his less than classical physical appearance, with his large forehead and small chin, as being somewhat at odds with his position as a public person, an intellectual, activist and humanist, She compared his resemblance to that of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. When you look at the Bown portrait those characteristics may be there but they seem to me to be overshadowed by Bown’s depiction of someone exuding warmth and confidence. These features are not apparent in most other portraits I have seen of Russell. Bown has captured some of his intensity and purpose I think, and perhaps a sort of patrician appearance, not unlike the photo by Weston of a Mexican senator. Her use of a nearly fully profile view accentuates his forehead and his extended head, suggesting the brilliant mind, while the sweep of light grey hair, well lit, and his expression, seem to speak of his humanitarian and philosophical views. I get the impression that she created a good report with her subject, which brought out his softer side. Although she was a very shy and self-effacing person, which may have led to her subjects often wanting to help her, she was known to always come away with her picture, and was able to bully some refractory subjects if that was needed, as she did with Samuel Beckett.</p>

<p>When you come upon her photographs it is difficult to accept that they are made with the simplest of light sources, often window light, and that her equipment has been no more than a simple SLR camera and a couple of fixed focal length optics. I’m not sure what equipment she carried into the twenty first century, film or digital, when she was in her eighties to meet and photograph the Queen of England at 80. She always insisted on quality, and often had to interact with, analyze and photograph her subject in a brief 10-minute period allotted to her, following a 50-minute interview with a reporter. The quality she sought was supported by the fact that she darkroom printed her own black and white work. However, her exposure metering methodology involved daylight shooting and often determining exposure by looking at the back of her hand. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Arthur mentions "rapport", and this is what Jane Bown has in aces and spades. Time and again:<br>

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-60-years-portraits#/?picture=354267023&index=17<br>

she managed to get relaxed looking portraits, and over the years developed a reputation which opened doors for her - and no doubt spared her the truly vile treatment which portrait photographers often get from subjects who DON'T want to be photographed and are having an attack of "prima donna" attitude (kept waiting for hours and then allowed one frame before the subject flounces off).<br>

I believe for quite a while Bown used a Rolleiflex TLR which she carried in a shopping basket - also toting a photoflood lamp and holder (no stand) which she would bounce off a wall as a fill to her trademark window light. She then moved to an Olympus OM and may well now be shooting digital. A legend in the business and someone whose images are very familiar to the public at large, even if her name may be less so. The image of Bertrand Russell which Arthur has chosen started her career.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Jane Brown’s portraits are a great example of what I call something like “naturalistic” or “casual” portraiture, which is exactly what you mentioned as being “difficult to accept that they are made with the simplest of light sources, often window light, and that her equipment has been no more than a simple SLR camera and a couple of fixed focal length optics.” I don’t find it difficult to accept at all, however. I have pursued this type of portraiture for the last 40 years, being inspired by the naturalistic photography of many great photographers such as Eugene Smith, Arnold Newman, Jim Marshall, Linda McCartney, and many more who employed a more photo-journalistic style. I just personally find this type of portrait the most enjoyable to do. I do appreciate the skill and art of portrait photographers who use studios and carefully planned set ups, such as Richard Avedon and Annie Leibovitz. Brown’s portrait of Russell is very nice and captures a feeling of warmth. Its certainly a wonderful start, being her first portrait.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Just a quick note : as David says the name is Jane Bown (no 'r').<br /> <br /> Bown's insistence on simplicity of approach is perhaps foreshadowed by the great Julia Margaret Cameron (1815 -1879) whose portraits of family and celebrities from Victorian times (and in the wet plate medium) also insisted on keeping things simple and unpretentious. The deliberate, apparently non-technical approach is a common thread between them.<br /> Here is Cameron's portrait of Charles Darwin for example :<br /> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/1314/Charles-Darwin-carbon-print-photograph-by-Julia-Margaret-Cameron-1868<br /> Here is Cameron's portrait of Sir John Herschel<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>A strongly, but simply lit male portrait. In the same bold style as Karsh of Ottawa in a few of his head and shoulder portraits. Not quite a profile, not three quarter angle. The background, very neutral, omits the customary CEO shot of a bookshelf or academy. Or like the back jacket of a book sleeve clip... Yet it is clear this is a person of stature by his strong look, his grey hair and 'lived in' face. The trace of a smile shows he has a softer side. And was interested in the sitting. He looks like he is interesting to talk to. And has stories to tell about his life. And I like the use of the square and the perfect positioning she has managed in my favorite format.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The main thing that strikes me about this portrait is how sculptural it is. I find it invitingly formal, especially due to the linear background, echoed more subtly in his suit. I'd need more narrative clues to feel something resembling an essence here but I do feel connected to this portrait for sure, because of the ease and genuineness that comes through even in an obviously posed and considered setup. It's a strong work. It shows confidence, both from the photographer and the subject. On that level, it's a nice collaboration.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I am suprised that it is thought she might have used an SLR and a couple of lenses as the pre-occupying culture of Guildford under Ivor Thomas was the Rollieflex and in my time, a little later than Jane, there was just one worker using a 35mm Contax to great effect. Everybody else used 120 or bigger, plates etc..<br>

At Guildford quality was not talked about but accepted even in one's first prints with tutors guiding one step-by-step through the process. It was quite a shock to leave and try to achieve similar results without guidance.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I am suprised that it is thought she might have used an SLR and a couple of lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.theguardian.com/gnmeducationcentre/jane-bown-camera-teaching-resource-gnm-archive</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Very fond of her almost "conversational" style and low-key but telling portraits. There's none of the taxidermic formality of the master embalmer, Karsh. Perhaps shooting 35mm made all the difference?<br>

A good choice. Thanks!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Sorry about the misnaming of Mrs. Bown in the text, which was either my own carelessness or the automatic corrector. While walking through her home during an interview in 2010 by Elizabeth Roberts of Black and White Photography, she looked at all the various portraits of her career hanging on the wall and covering sixty years of photography and quietly asked Roberts "what does all this mean?" In many of her portraits I get the impression that the sitter is not looking at the camera but rather at the photographer. And in many of the images the photographer seems to be looking beyond the outward appearance of the subject.</p>

<p>Does Bown's manner of interacting with her subjects and transcending the obvious work? I don't know, but I am led from her photos to be as curious about her subjects as I might be on seeing those of Liebowitz or Karsh, who used more elaborate approaches to portraiture. Here is one she made of Samuel Beckett.</p>

<p>http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw07089/Samuel-Beckett</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Does Bown's manner of interacting with her subjects and transcending the obvious work?</em><br /> For me, it certainly does - I get the feeling when viewing her portraits that I am seeing what I would have seen, had I met the sitter face to face at that time. They have a ring of truth about them (although we should not forget the old joke: "The most important human quality is sincerity - if you can fake that, you've got it made!").<br /> Bown versus Karsh or Leibovitz - I feel Karsh was accommodating to his subjects and let them present the public face that they wanted to present. In this, he was a superb technical facilitator, but the technique broke down when he tried to photograph less famous people - there's just no sense of personality.<br /> Leibovitz on the other hand is very much late 20th century, very much aware that there are lots of photogs around and that it is vital to achieve a personal style at all costs. In her case, she seems to be of the "push the subject hard and keep on pushing" school - I read one bizarre story of how she was photographing Arnold Schwarzenegger and wanted to present him as a circus strongman with Dolly Parton sitting on his shoulder. Close physical contact with DP led AS to get an erection, at which AL and DP collapsed into giggles. AL seems to have the chutzpah to get away with this kind of thing, but I don't think I'd recommend it to up and coming photogs :-) .<br>

PS: The image of which I speak:<br>

<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Leibovitz+Schwarzenegger+Parton&tbm=isch&imgil=vWcWR4n5O1sYgM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQ4HfQ9d_-agbIJIgNd903E8VcPrE3x6hjMmHCbacjKht_M92ASMw%253B188%253B273%253BpIgt9zAFTmv2EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.mutualart.com%25252FArtwork%25252FDolly-Parton-and-Arnold-Schwarzenegger--%25252FD72187FD416F9E83&source=iu&usg=__laexqG3WypKpmxYkVVHi11pawy4%3D&sa=X&ei=nWQBU6rjLIWd7QauroHoDQ&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAQ&biw=1280&bih=601#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vWcWR4n5O1sYgM%253A%3BpIgt9zAFTmv2EM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.mutualart.com%252FImages%252F2009_10%252F21%252F0018%252F741393%252F129006308251954144_5ed0d959-3fd6-4469-be6b-50982cb2c2b0_10847_273.Jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mutualart.com%252FArtwork%252FDolly-Parton-and-Arnold-Schwarzenegger--%252FD72187FD416F9E83%3B188%3B273">https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Leibovitz+Schwarzenegger+Parton&tbm=isch&imgil=vWcWR4n5O1sYgM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQ4HfQ9d_-agbIJIgNd903E8VcPrE3x6hjMmHCbacjKht_M92ASMw%253B188%253B273%253BpIgt9zAFTmv2EM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.mutualart.com%25252FArtwork%25252FDolly-Parton-and-Arnold-Schwarzenegger--%25252FD72187FD416F9E83&source=iu&usg=__laexqG3WypKpmxYkVVHi11pawy4%3D&sa=X&ei=nWQBU6rjLIWd7QauroHoDQ&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAQ&biw=1280&bih=601#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vWcWR4n5O1sYgM%253A%3BpIgt9zAFTmv2EM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.mutualart.com%252FImages%252F2009_10%252F21%252F0018%252F741393%252F129006308251954144_5ed0d959-3fd6-4469-be6b-50982cb2c2b0_10847_273.Jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mutualart.com%252FArtwork%252FDolly-Parton-and-Arnold-Schwarzenegger--%252FD72187FD416F9E83%3B188%3B273</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, what do you mean when you say her portraits transcend the obvious? I get just the opposite impression, that they express the obvious, what was right in front of her, in a very authentic way. And I'm not using "obvious" as any sort of a put-down, but simply as descriptive. She doesn't seem to me to be going for any sort of transcendent qualities, but rather for what was right in front of her, in an honest and forthright way. This photo is a particularly strong example.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I like the profile pose and the effect of the light from the side. Lots of detail is visible in the hair.</p>

<p>I enjoyed looking at Ms. Brown's portfolio. Exquisite work. Thanks for posting!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm familiar with Bown's work without being consciously aware of her as a photographer. She seems to have a knack for the offhand style, like an intimate friend who happens to be a good photographer. And I love her iconic photos of PJ Harvey and Francis Bacon. That's enough to make me pay closer attention.</p>

[Mark Z]

<p>Others have mentioned Karsh, so I thought I'd see if Karsh had also photographed Bertrand Russell. Google Images provided three Karsh photos of Russell. In comparing Bown's shot with Karsh's, had I not known who took which pictures, I probably would have guessed that the Karsh shots were Bown's and vice versa. The Karsh shot with the pipe and smoke looks a bit Bownesque because of the animation. And the silhouette by Karsh, well, I don't recall him doing many silhouettes.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks to the several comments to date which I find quite informative both about how Bown photographs and what you think of her work. I've been away since Sunday and am just now getting caught up with the latest comments. Apologies for the lack of interaction since then.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Does Bown's manner of interacting with her subjects and transcending the obvious work? I don't know, but I am led from her photos to be as curious about her subjects as I might be on seeing those of Liebowitz or Karsh....."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I appreciate your comment on the important issue of transcendence, but as I mentioned I really am not sure that her portraits transcends the obvious. That is something that I personally find to be quite rare in any portraiture. At the time of shooting, like that of Bertrand Russell, the obvious is (obviously) what she captured. However, it was obvious to her only perhaps? Did she illicit that response of Russell? Yes, probably, at least to a degree. Has that same expression and manner been photographed before with Russell. Perhaps, but I haven't seen that in the various photos I have seen of him.</p>

<p>Karsh and Leibowitz, to name but two portraitists or personality photographers, take considerable time and effort in their work, a luxury Bown did not have in most cases. For me, Karsh sculpts his subjects with light and provides a physically sensual image but perhaps he captures only the essence of the subject's exterior, although some of his portraits go deeper in transcending the outer appearance, but not many I think. Leibowitz experiments with different poses and approaches to her subjects but for me many of them do not go beyond an obvious theatricality or gimmickry. On the other hand, others may consider her approach as being insightful of the person photographed.</p>

<p>One way to get some relative degree of the ability of the photographer to penetrate within the world or mind of his subject and show something not obvious is to compare the work of a number of fine photographers with the same subject. To do that well, I think, we would have to select several subjects and several photographers of the same person. Not easy as a research, but if I get a few minutes away from more bread ands butter issues before Sunday I will attempt to compare the images of Bown with other known portraitists.</p>

<p>In that regard, a monograph of her work entitled "Exposures" is available via the Guardian bookstore in England (I don't think it is available yet in Europe, North America. Australasia or the Orient). I ordered it with two other books and received them well within two weeks (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/bookshop">http://www.guardian.co.uk/bookshop</a>) <br /> Exposures ISBN: 97808526514141 £20.00 (delivery charge roughly £8)</p>

<p>Can we compare her approach and results to that of other well-known photographers? If I may challenge you to do that, as Mark Zell has also considered by his comment regarding Karsh's Russell, here are some of Bown's photographs that may be good examples of pertinence and / or transcendence. If someone has a reference to a portrait of these subjects from more or less the same period of Bown's, it may be instructive to see how two or more photographers have approached the same subject. Here are some of Bown's that I may be able to reference against other examples of the same subject:</p>

<p>John Houston 1954; Eve Arnold 1996; Mick Jagger 1977; Boy George 1995; Richard Nixon 1978; John Betejeman 1972; Robert Redford 1970; Francis Bacon 1975; Anthony Burgess 1992; Truman Capote 1959; Bob Hope 1950; Bono 1987; Orson Welles 1951; Edna O'Brien 2002; Morrissey 1995; Tennessee Williams 1977; Lucian Freud 1983; Sylvester Stallone 1979; Samuel Beckett 1976; Bjork 1995; David Bailey 2005; Woody Allen 1994; Dennis Hopper 1982; Queen Elizabeth II 2006; Vivienne Westwood 1999; Desmond Tutu 1993; Edith Sitwell 1959; Jean Cocteasu 1950; Holly Hunter 2005; Jessye Norman 1981</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, thanks for your considered answer.</p>

<p>For me, comparing the work of photographers will mostly suggest different photographic styles and approaches. I find transcendence, when I do find it, doesn't come by comparison but is rather there in itself. It is a reaching beyond not what the person looks like but who the person seems to be even in the photo. That I can make someone look serious-minded or philosophically-minded or fun-loving in a photo and even do it more and better than other photographers who've shot the same thing isn't, for me, a matter of transcendence. But that in viewing the serious-mindedness or fun-loving aspects of the subject I am transported beyond those of the individual to a sense of their universality or even of those qualities being inside ME, as photographer or as outside viewer, a work can be transcendent. There is often a certain amount of not knowing involved in transcendence. Avedon, who I respect greatly but who's not my favorite portrait photographer, said something I love:</p>

<p><em>"My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of what’s on the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues."</em></p>

<p>Clues, to me, suggest the mystery of transcendence. And what's better is that such mystery is suggested in the context of the surface.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hi Fred, thanks for your appreciation of transcendence, which I agree with. When I see a photo of a friend or a known individual (to me), the sense of transcendence is more easy to establish, but when it is of a publicly known person who is portrayed by the media and not really known to me, sensing transcendent aspects is not easy. I can see gimmickry or the approach of the photographer or other often superficial elements applied to the "surface" of the image, but the image does not speak more strongly than that.</p>

<p>I maintain, nonetheless, that one interesting way to go beyond that with a public person whom we know only as a "notable", but not more intimately than that, or confused by conflicting information (example of politicians meaning very different things to different persons or represented by image makers in differing ways), is by comparing the portraits of the same person by differing photographers. Many will simply be documentary while some others may evidently show something that most have not obtained.</p>

<p>I think the Bown photo of Russell is one of those (it helps to have known what constituted Russell's life, failures, values and successes), compared to other images of Russell and perhaps Beckett and Freud two others that seem to transcend the usual or obvious. I hope that some who read this forum might have references to other photographers who have portrayed some of Bown's subjects, and which might show their or Bown's success or not in depicting transcendent aspects.</p>

<p>This may be too tall an order in the time available here, but I believe actual photographic comparisons here of the same subject, with its research and depiction, would go well beyond a photographers's statement of purpose or intentions, as interesting as that may be.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>An interesting difference between us, Arthur. It makes little difference to me (in terms of transcendence and many other photographic considerations) whether I know the subject of the portrait or not. Because in so many cases of good portraiture I'm only concerned with the person as portrayed, not with who the person may actually be. That's not to say I don't appreciate a photographer's ability to bring out some known qualities of those people I do know, but that's a matter of accurate reflection of subject matter more than a matter of transcendence to me. For me, portraits are of someone human, whoever they may be in real life. And they often give me much more insight into human expression and emotion than they do into an individual's personality just because that individual happens to be represented. In most cases, when we know the person, we will work backwards to make emotional associations to their personality. In a portrait of Bertrand Russell, we know he was a philosopher so it's not surprising that what we feel is a good portrait will make us see the philosopher in him. Had we not known he was a philosopher, I bet the same portrait could elicit any number of other projections about who the person is. Those projections would only be "wrong" if we knew the person not to be that way. But in terms of our actual relationship to the portrait itself (forgetting about the actual person depicted), our projections can never be wrong, because that's what we see and feel and there's no reason a good portrait can't transport us not only beyond but to a place antithetical to who the person is. </p>

<p>The irony with portraiture and much other photography as well is that there is a strong connection to the actual subject, whether human or architectural or landscape, etc. And so we usually expect to, and often do, learn something about that subject. At the same time, photography can't and shouldn't necessarily be trusted to accurately depict anything. Because artists will always take liberties and will always try to create something of their own making out of the raw materials the world is providing them to shoot. IMO, a portrait is still a good portrait even if it tells me nothing about the individual who's the actual subject. It might still say something very significant about "person" or expression or moment or even skin tone or bodily form.</p>

<p>One of my favorite things to do is to go to a local gallery of portrait artists and view portraits of people I don't know. I usually don't have the opportunity to see other renditions of these same folks and yet I either get a feeling of transcendence or not just from the image before me. I've also seen many great portraits of people I do know, and the portraits may be great precisely because they create a new fictitious character (but one I can relate to) out of the person I know. Furthermore, a good portrait of someone I know will often tell me something new about a person I know rather than something I already knew.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>We are less far apart than you may think, Fred, although I recognize that a good discussion benefits from underscoring the differences. In terms of our subject, though, think of the acting profession in terms of their ability to project. An actor can make you think what he wants you to think, at least a large fraction of the time if he is a good actor and even within the constraints of an instantneous image. Most of the rest of us, whether we are well known persons or not, do not have that ability. So what do we take away from the image? Something I think that often has more to do with ourselves than with the subject, just as the doer rather than the receiver, that is the photographer, can provide in some cases that extra value, apart from the obviousness in the image before us.</p>

<p>Russell had some advantages denied to the average Englishman of his time. Although he was an aristocrat, that didn't limit his outlook. A philosopher he was, but that is too unidirectional a categorization, as he was also a logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. He spent time in jail (WW1) as an anti-war activist or pacifist and was also anti-Imperialist and anti-nuclearist. Early on in those sagas he attacked Hitler, Stalin and US involvement in the Vietnam war. His work in logic and mathematics had a considerable influence on artificial intelligence, computer science and cognitive science and as a humanitarian and free thinker he also received the Nobel prize for literature. My knowledge of Russell is limited but he is a hero for me and probably for many who achieved much more than myself. Knowing a little of his strength of character makes Bown's image strong, as we see an image of someone who might pass for a pastor or local alderman or a government scientist but who seems to create an empathy in the viewer through the window Bown provides us. No ideal Athenian male, or star personality appearance, but a somewhat frail looking but strong presence.</p>

<p>Knowing nothing of the subject photographed would I think also inspire a certain confidence in this otherwise "mad hatter like" face. That is what transpires for me, but possibly also to some minor degree because I am also no conventional physical beauty.</p>

<p>We could talk about the nature of transcendence, which is a most interesting and mysterious subject in itself, but maybe someone will feel inspired to introduce that to the PofP forum at some better time.</p>

<p>For the rest of this weekly discussion, I will limit my own thoughts to any examples photographers might suggest in regard to different portraits of one subject by different known photographers. That I find intriguing, for different reasons.<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I'll pass on the Philosophy forum suggestion, though perhaps someone else will pursue it. I think I had started a thread on transcendence in PoP a while back, so it's been done there already. I enjoyed discussing transcendence with you right here particularly as it relates to portraits and to this portrait, which is a bit more specific and grounded a discussion I think. But I get that you want to move past that part of the discussion. I see that no one has taken up your suggestion about comparing different photographers' portraits of the same person and, as you've decided to limit yourself to only that one possibility of further discussion, your participation may come to an end here, but it's Saturday and a new discussion will begin tomorrow. So, thanks for a great addition to these threads and for introducing me to a photographer I hadn't heard of and to some portraits that add much to my own vocabulary on the genre.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks, Fred.</p>

<p>The question of multiple attempts at a same subject will have to wait another opportunity. I am quite interested in transendance in art and photography. Great art, like symbols, always point to something else, which is a type of transcendance and communication.</p>

<p>I privilege transcendance in my own work, but don't often succeed.</p>

<p>How does transcendance manifest itself powerfully in photography? That is intriguing and can be quite informative, and also formative.</p>

<p>I will look up your PofP (I may even have participated in it, but I don't recall).</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>The question of multiple attempts at a same subject will have to wait another opportunity.</em><br>

You could do worse than start here (Bertrand Russell by this week's discussion subject Alfred Eisenstaedt):<br>

<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Alfred+Eisenstaedt+Bertrand+Russell&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=iqIKU86pLqfF7AagkoGgCw&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601">https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Alfred+Eisenstaedt+Bertrand+Russell&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=iqIKU86pLqfF7AagkoGgCw&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601</a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>David, yes, Eisenstadt's photo of Russell is OK, very formal, but does it have the panache of Bown's? I don't think so. The pipe in Eisie's photo is kind of a silly prop (I shouldn't talk, as I smoked one when in England and gave it up only when I popped it into my sports coat pocket to make two hands quickly available for something or other, only to set fire to my coat. End of pipe smoking).</p>

<p>His photo of the Paris kids is a classic though.</p>